DISCLOSURE / FILE
A CIA in-house history by NRO historian Gerald K. Haines tracing the Agency's involvement in UFO study from 1947 to 1990, written from files reviewed after DCI R. James Woolsey ordered a fresh review in late 1993.
CIA CREST, CIAs Role in the Study of UAP 1947-1990 (Haines)
A CIA in-house history by NRO historian Gerald K. Haines tracing the Agency's involvement in UFO study from 1947 to 1990, written from files reviewed after DCI R. James Woolsey ordered a fresh review in late 1993.
The study argues that CIA concern over UFOs was heavy through the early 1950s and only peripheral afterward, and it documents the Agency's deliberate concealment of its own interest, which later fueled conspiracy charges. It walks through the Air Force projects SIGN, GRUDGE, and BLUE BOOK, the 1952 Washington National Airport radar scares, the OSI study group under DCI Walter Bedell Smith, and the January 1953 Robertson Panel that recommended debunking sightings. It states that, by later CIA estimates, over half of UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by U-2 and OXCART reconnaissance flights. Every investigative body it cites found no direct national-security threat and no evidence of extraterrestrial visits.
While Agency concern over UFOs was substantial uatil the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena.p.1
Because of the tense Cold War situation and increased Soviet capabilities, the CLA Study Group saw serious national security concerns in the flying saucer situation.p.5
BLUE BOOK investigators were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights.p.7
It suggested using the mass media, advertising, business clubs, schools, and even the Disney corporation to get che message across.p.6
The panel met from 14 to 17 January 1953.p.6
Extracted text · Page 1
Page 1 · queued for OCR
C00242525 CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90 | | Gerald K. Haines cory Be NLABlE 66 While Agency concern over UFOs was substantial uatil the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena. 99 Gerald K. Haines is the National Reconnaissance Office historian. An extraordinary 95 percent of all Americans have ac lease heard or read something about Unidentitied Flying Objects (UFOs), and 57 percenc believe they are real. Former US Presidents Carter and Reagan claim to have seen a UFO. UFOlogists—a neologism for UFO buffs—and pri- vace UFO organizations are found throughout the United States. Many are convinced chat the US Govern- ment, and particularly CIA, are engaged in a massive conspiracy and coverup of the issue. The idea thac CIA has secretly concealed its research into UFOs has been a major theme of UFO buffs since the mod- ern UFO phenomena emerged in the late 1940s.? In late 1993, after being pressured by UF Ologists for che release of addi- tional CIA information on UFOs,? DCI R. James Woolsey ordered another review of all Agency files on UFOs. Using CIA records compiled from that review, this scudy traces CIA interest and involvement in the UFO controversy from the late 1940s to 1990. Ic chronologically examines the Agency’s efforts to solve the mys- tery of UFOs, its programs thac had. * an impact on UFO sightings, and its attempts to conceal CIA involvement in che entire UFO isstie. Whar emerges from this examination is that, while Agency concern over UFOs was substantial uncil the early 1950s, CIA - has since paid only limiced and periph- eral actention co the phenomena. Background The emergence in 1947 of the Cold War confrontation between the RELEASE eae ren ar teenie nmne United States and the Sevier Union also saw the first wave of UFO sight- ings. The Hest cepore of a “flying saucer” over the United Scaces came on 24 June 1947, when Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot and repurable businessman, while looking for a downed plane sighted nine disk- shaped objects near Mc. Rainier, Washington, traveling ac an estimated speed of over 1,000 mph. Arnold's. report was followed by a flood of addi- tional sightings, including reports _ from military and civilian pilots and air craffic controllers all over the United Srates.4 In 1948, Air Force. Gen. Nathan Twining, head of che Air Technical Service Command, established Project SIGN (initially named Project SAUCER) to collect, | collace, evaluate, and distribute within. the government all information relat. ing to such sightings, on the premise thac UFOs might be real and of national security concern .. The Technical Intelligence Division of the Air Material Command (AMC) ae Wright Field (later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) in Dayton, Ohio, assumed control of Project SIGN and began its work on 23 January 1948. Alchough ac firse fearful thac the objects might be Soviet secret weapons, the Air Force soon concluded that UFOs were real but easily explained and noc extraor- dinary. The Air Force report found that almost all sightings stemmed from one or more of three causes: mass hysteria and hallucination, hoax, or misinterpretation of known objects. Nevertheless, the report rec- - ommended continued military intelligence control over the investi- gation of all sightings and did noc
Page 2 · queued for OCR
C 00242525 i UFOs rule ouc the possibilicy of extraterres- trial phenomena. ® Amid mounting UFO sightings, the Air Force continued to collect and evaluate UFO data in the late 1940s under a new project, GRUDGE, which eried co alleviate public anxiety over UFOs via a public relations cam- paign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted norhing unusual or extraordinary. UFO sight- ings were explained as balloons, conventional aircraft, planets, mete- ors, optical illusions, solar reflections, or even “large hailstones.” GRUDGE officials found no evidence in UFO sightings of advanced foreign weapons design or development, and they con- cluded that UFOs did not threaten US security. They recommended chac the project be reduced in scope because the very existence of Air Force official interest encouraged. peo-. ple co believe in UFOs and contributed co a “war hysteria” acmo- _ sphere. On 27 December 1949, the Airc Force announced the project's cermination.” With increased Cold War tensions, the Korean war, and continued UFO sightings, USAF Director of Intelli- gence Maj. Gen. Charles P. Cabell ordered a new UFO project in 1952. Project BLUE BOOK became the major Air Force effort to scudy the UFO phenomenon throughour che 1950s and 1960s.° The task of identi- fying and explaining UFOs concinued to fall on the Air Material Command at Wright-Patterson. Wich a small staff, che Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) tried to persuade the public thac UFOs were not excraordi- nary.” Projects SIGN, GRUDGE, and BLUE BOOK ser che cone for the official US Government position regarding UFOs for the next 30 years. 68 Early CIA Concerns, 1947-52 CIA closely monitored the Air Force effort, aware of the mounting number of sightings and increasingly con- cerned thar UFOs might pose a potential securicy threat. '° Given che distribution of the sightings, CIA offt- cials in 1952 questioned whether they mighe reflect “midsummer madness.”!! Agency officials accepted the Air Force’s conclusions about UFO reports, although they con- cluded that “since there is a remore possibilicy chat they may be interplan- etary aircraft, ic is necessary to investigate each sighting.” ? A massive buildup of sightings over the United Staces in 1952, especially in July, alarmed the Truman adminis- tration. On 19 and 20 July, radar scopes ac Washington National Air- port and Andrews Air Force Base cracked mysterious blips. On 27 July, the blips reappeared. The Air Force scrambled interceptor aircraft co inves- tigate, but they found nothing. The incidents, however, caused headlines across the country. The White House wanted to know what was happening, and the Air Force quickly offered the explanation that the radar blips might be the result of “cemperacure inversions.” Later, a Civil Aetonautics Administration investigation con- firmed thac such radar blips were quite common and were caused by temperature inversions. ' Although it had monicored UFO reports for at least chree years, CLA reacted to the new rash of sightings by forming a special study group within the Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSH) and the Office of Current Incel- ligence (OCI) to review che situation. Edward Tauss, acting chief of OSI’s Weapons and Equip- ment Division, reported for the group thac most UFO sightings could be eas- ily explained. Nevertheless, he recommended that the Agency con-. tinue monitoring the problem, in coordination with ATIC, He also urged that CLA conceal its interest from the media and the public, “in view of their probable alarmist tenden- cies” to accept such interest as confirming che existence of UFOs. 5 Upon receiving the report, Deputy Director for Intelligence (DD1) Rob- ert Amory, Jr. assigned responsibility for the UFO investigations to OSI's Physics and Electronics Division, with A. Ray Gordon as the officer in charge. '* Each branch in the division was to contribute to the investigation, and Gordon was to coordinate closely with ATIC. Amory, who asked the group to focus on the national secu- rity implications of UFOs, was telaying DCI Walter Bedell Smith's concerns.'? Smith wanted to know whether or not the Air Foree investiga- tion of flying saucers was sufficiendy objective and how much more money and manpower would be necessary to determine the cause of the small per- centage of unexplained flying saucers: Smith believed “there was only one chance in 10,000 that the phenome- non posed a threat to the security of the country, buc even that chance could noc be taken.” According to Smith, it was CLA’s responsibilicy by statute to coordinace the incelligence effort required to solve the problem. Smith also wanted to know what use could be made of the UFO phenome- non in connection with US psychological warfare efforcs. "8 Led by Gordon, the CIA Study Group met with Air Force officials at Wright-Patcerson and reviewed their data and findings. The Air Force claimed chac 90 percent of the reported sightings were casily
Page 18 · queued for OCR
C00242525 | i UFOs - 92. See John Diamond, “Air Force Probes 1947 UFO Claim Findings Are Down to Earth,” 9 Sepcember 1994, Associated Press release; William J. Broad, “Wreckage of a ‘Spaceship’: Of This Earth (and U.S.)," The New York Times, 18 September 1994, p. 1; and USAF Col. Richard L. Weaver and Use Le. James McAndrew, The Roswell Report, Fact Versus Fiction in New Mexico Desert (Washington, DC: GPO, 1995). 93. See Good, Above Top Secret, Moore and S. T. Friedman, “Philip Klass and M§J-12: Whar are the Faces,” (Bur- bank California: Fair-Witness Project, 1988), Publicacion Number 1290; Klass, “New Evidence of MJ-12 1. Hoax,” Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 14 4 (Winter 1990); and Moore and Jaime ‘ H. Shandera, The M/-12 Documents: An Analytical Report (Burbank, Cali- ‘ fornia: Fairc-Wicness Project, 1990), Publication Number 1500. Walcer Bedell Smith supposedly replaced For- restal on 1 August 1950 following Focrestal’s death. All members listed were deceased when the MJ-12 “docu- ments” surfaced in 1984. See Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 258-268. Dr. Larry Bland, editor of The George C. Marshall Papers, discovered that one of che so-called Majestic-12 docu- ments was a complete fraud. [t contained the exact same language as a leccer from Marshall co Presidencial candidate Thomas Dewey regarding the “Magic” intercepts in 1944. The dates and names had been altered and “Magic” changed to “Majic.” More- over, ic was a photocopy, noc an original. No original MJ-12 docu- mencs have ever surfaced. Telephone conversation between che auchor and Bland, 29 August 1994. 84
Concatenated page-by-page transcript. Born-digital pages came through pdf.js; scanned pages were transcribed by Claude vision OCR. Pages marked unreadable failed multiple OCR retries (heavy redaction, microfilm artifacts, or blank separators) and are kept in place for audit.
C00242525 CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90 | | Gerald K. Haines cory Be NLABlE 66 While Agency concern over UFOs was substantial uatil the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena. 99 Gerald K. Haines is the National Reconnaissance Office historian. An extraordinary 95 percent of all Americans have ac lease heard or read something about Unidentitied Flying Objects (UFOs), and 57 percenc believe they are real. Former US Presidents Carter and Reagan claim to have seen a UFO. UFOlogists—a neologism for UFO buffs—and pri- vace UFO organizations are found throughout the United States. Many are convinced chat the US Govern- ment, and particularly CIA, are engaged in a massive conspiracy and coverup of the issue. The idea thac CIA has secretly concealed its research into UFOs has been a major theme of UFO buffs since the mod- ern UFO phenomena emerged in the late 1940s.? In late 1993, after being pressured by UF Ologists for che release of addi- tional CIA information on UFOs,? DCI R. James Woolsey ordered another review of all Agency files on UFOs. Using CIA records compiled from that review, this scudy traces CIA interest and involvement in the UFO controversy from the late 1940s to 1990. Ic chronologically examines the Agency’s efforts to solve the mys- tery of UFOs, its programs thac had. * an impact on UFO sightings, and its attempts to conceal CIA involvement in che entire UFO isstie. Whar emerges from this examination is that, while Agency concern over UFOs was substantial uncil the early 1950s, CIA - has since paid only limiced and periph- eral actention co the phenomena. Background The emergence in 1947 of the Cold War confrontation between the RELEASE eae ren ar teenie nmne United States and the Sevier Union also saw the first wave of UFO sight- ings. The Hest cepore of a “flying saucer” over the United Scaces came on 24 June 1947, when Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot and repurable businessman, while looking for a downed plane sighted nine disk- shaped objects near Mc. Rainier, Washington, traveling ac an estimated speed of over 1,000 mph. Arnold's. report was followed by a flood of addi- tional sightings, including reports _ from military and civilian pilots and air craffic controllers all over the United Srates.4 In 1948, Air Force. Gen. Nathan Twining, head of che Air Technical Service Command, established Project SIGN (initially named Project SAUCER) to collect, | collace, evaluate, and distribute within. the government all information relat. ing to such sightings, on the premise thac UFOs might be real and of national security concern .. The Technical Intelligence Division of the Air Material Command (AMC) ae Wright Field (later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) in Dayton, Ohio, assumed control of Project SIGN and began its work on 23 January 1948. Alchough ac firse fearful thac the objects might be Soviet secret weapons, the Air Force soon concluded that UFOs were real but easily explained and noc extraor- dinary. The Air Force report found that almost all sightings stemmed from one or more of three causes: mass hysteria and hallucination, hoax, or misinterpretation of known objects. Nevertheless, the report rec- - ommended continued military intelligence control over the investi- gation of all sightings and did noc
C 00242525 i UFOs rule ouc the possibilicy of extraterres- trial phenomena. ® Amid mounting UFO sightings, the Air Force continued to collect and evaluate UFO data in the late 1940s under a new project, GRUDGE, which eried co alleviate public anxiety over UFOs via a public relations cam- paign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted norhing unusual or extraordinary. UFO sight- ings were explained as balloons, conventional aircraft, planets, mete- ors, optical illusions, solar reflections, or even “large hailstones.” GRUDGE officials found no evidence in UFO sightings of advanced foreign weapons design or development, and they con- cluded that UFOs did not threaten US security. They recommended chac the project be reduced in scope because the very existence of Air Force official interest encouraged. peo-. ple co believe in UFOs and contributed co a “war hysteria” acmo- _ sphere. On 27 December 1949, the Airc Force announced the project's cermination.” With increased Cold War tensions, the Korean war, and continued UFO sightings, USAF Director of Intelli- gence Maj. Gen. Charles P. Cabell ordered a new UFO project in 1952. Project BLUE BOOK became the major Air Force effort to scudy the UFO phenomenon throughour che 1950s and 1960s.° The task of identi- fying and explaining UFOs concinued to fall on the Air Material Command at Wright-Patterson. Wich a small staff, che Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) tried to persuade the public thac UFOs were not excraordi- nary.” Projects SIGN, GRUDGE, and BLUE BOOK ser che cone for the official US Government position regarding UFOs for the next 30 years. 68 Early CIA Concerns, 1947-52 CIA closely monitored the Air Force effort, aware of the mounting number of sightings and increasingly con- cerned thar UFOs might pose a potential securicy threat. '° Given che distribution of the sightings, CIA offt- cials in 1952 questioned whether they mighe reflect “midsummer madness.”!! Agency officials accepted the Air Force’s conclusions about UFO reports, although they con- cluded that “since there is a remore possibilicy chat they may be interplan- etary aircraft, ic is necessary to investigate each sighting.” ? A massive buildup of sightings over the United Staces in 1952, especially in July, alarmed the Truman adminis- tration. On 19 and 20 July, radar scopes ac Washington National Air- port and Andrews Air Force Base cracked mysterious blips. On 27 July, the blips reappeared. The Air Force scrambled interceptor aircraft co inves- tigate, but they found nothing. The incidents, however, caused headlines across the country. The White House wanted to know what was happening, and the Air Force quickly offered the explanation that the radar blips might be the result of “cemperacure inversions.” Later, a Civil Aetonautics Administration investigation con- firmed thac such radar blips were quite common and were caused by temperature inversions. ' Although it had monicored UFO reports for at least chree years, CLA reacted to the new rash of sightings by forming a special study group within the Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSH) and the Office of Current Incel- ligence (OCI) to review che situation. Edward Tauss, acting chief of OSI’s Weapons and Equip- ment Division, reported for the group thac most UFO sightings could be eas- ily explained. Nevertheless, he recommended that the Agency con-. tinue monitoring the problem, in coordination with ATIC, He also urged that CLA conceal its interest from the media and the public, “in view of their probable alarmist tenden- cies” to accept such interest as confirming che existence of UFOs. 5 Upon receiving the report, Deputy Director for Intelligence (DD1) Rob- ert Amory, Jr. assigned responsibility for the UFO investigations to OSI's Physics and Electronics Division, with A. Ray Gordon as the officer in charge. '* Each branch in the division was to contribute to the investigation, and Gordon was to coordinate closely with ATIC. Amory, who asked the group to focus on the national secu- rity implications of UFOs, was telaying DCI Walter Bedell Smith's concerns.'? Smith wanted to know whether or not the Air Foree investiga- tion of flying saucers was sufficiendy objective and how much more money and manpower would be necessary to determine the cause of the small per- centage of unexplained flying saucers: Smith believed “there was only one chance in 10,000 that the phenome- non posed a threat to the security of the country, buc even that chance could noc be taken.” According to Smith, it was CLA’s responsibilicy by statute to coordinace the incelligence effort required to solve the problem. Smith also wanted to know what use could be made of the UFO phenome- non in connection with US psychological warfare efforcs. "8 Led by Gordon, the CIA Study Group met with Air Force officials at Wright-Patcerson and reviewed their data and findings. The Air Force claimed chac 90 percent of the reported sightings were casily
C00242525 UFOs Amateur photographs of alleged UFOs Passoria, New Jersey, 31 July 1952
UFOs C00242525 4 March 1962 . England Sheffield Minneupolis. Minnesota, 20 October 1960 70
C00242525 accounted for. The other 10 percent ~ were characterized as “a number of incredible reports from credible observers.” The Air Force rejected the theories that che sightings involved US or Soviet secret weapons development or that they involved “men from Mars”; chere was no evi- dence to support these concepts. The Air Force briefers sought to explain these UFO reports as the mis- interpretation of known objects or licdle understood natural phenomena." Air Force and CIA officials agreed that outside knowl- edge of Agency interest in UFOs would make the problem more serious.” This concealment of CIA interest concributed greatly co later charges of a CIA conspiracy and coverup. The CIA Scudy Group also searched the Soviet press for UFO reports, but found none, causing the group to conclude that che absence of reports had to have been che result of deliber- ate Soviet Government policy. The group also envisioned the USSR’s possible use of UFOs as a psychologi- cal warfare tool. In addition, they worried that, if che US air warning system should be deliberately over- loaded by UFO sightings, che Soviets might gain a surprise advantage in any nuclear acrack. 2! Because of the tense Cold War situa- tion and increased Sovier capabilities, che CIA Study Group saw serious national security con- cerns in che flying saucer situation. The group believed that the Soviets could use UFO reports co touch off mass hysteria and panic in the United Sates. The group also believed that the Soviets might use UFO sightings co overload the US air warning system so thac ic could not distinguish real targets from 66 Because of the tense Cold War situation and increased Soviet capabilities, the CLA Study Group saw serious national security concerns in the flying saucer situation. 99 phantom UFOs. H. Marshall Chad- well, Assistance Director of OSI, added that he considered the prob- lem of such importance “that ic should be brought to the attention of the National Security Council, in order that a communitywide coordi- nated effort cowards it solution may be initiated.”” Chadwell briefed DCI Smith on the subject of UFOs in December 1952. He urged action because he was con- vinced chat “something was going on that must have immediate actention” and thac “sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and travel- ing ac high speeds in the vicinity of major US defense installations are of such nature that they are nor accribuc- able co natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles.” He drafted a memorandum from the DCI to the National Security Council (NSC) and a proposed NSC Directive escab- lishing che investigation of UFOs as a prioricy project throughout che intelligence and the defense research and development community. 23 Chadwell also urged Smith to escab- lish an external research project of top-level scientists to study the prob- lem of UFOs.™ After this briefing, Smith directed DDI Amory to pre- pare a NSC Intelligence Directive (NSCID) for submission to the NSC on the need to continue the investiga- tion of UFOs and to coordinate such ~ investigations with che Air Force.” The Robertson Panel, 1952-53 On 4 December 1952, che Intelli- gence Advisory Committee (LAC) took up the issue of UFOs. 6 Amory, as acting chairman, presented DCI Smith’s request to the committee that ic informally discuss the subject of UFOs. Chadwell chen briefly reviewed the sicuacion and the active program of the ATIC relating to UFOs. The committee agreed chat the DCI should “enlist the services ' of selected scientists to review and appraise the available evidence in the light of pertinent scientific theories” and draft an NSCID on the subject.?” Maj. Gen. John A. Sam- ford, Director of Air Force Intelligence, offered full cooperation. ** At the same time, Chadwell looked into British efforts in this area. He learned the British also were active in studying the UFO phenomena. An eminence British scientist, R. V. Jones, headed a standing commictee created in June 1951 on flying saucers. Jones’ and his committee's conclu- sions on UFOs were similar co those of Agency officials: the sightings were not enemy aircraft but misrepre- sentations of natural phenomena. The British noted, however, chac dur- ing a recent air show RAF pilots and senior military officials had observed a “perfect flying saucer.” Given the press response, according to the officer, Jones was having a most diffi- cule time trying to correct public opinion regarding UFOs. The public was convinced they were real.” In January 1953, Chadwell and H. P. Robertson, a noted physicist from the California Institute of Technology, put together a distinguished panel of nonmilitary scientists to study the UFO issue. It included Robertson as 71
C00242525 UFOs chaicman; Sarnuel A. Goudsmizr, a nuclear physicist from the Brookhaven National Laboratories; Luis Alvarez, a high-energy physicist, Thorncon Page, the deputy director of the Johns Hop- kins Operations Research Office and an expert on cadar and electronics; and Lloyd Berkner, a director of the Brookhaven National Laboratories and a specialist in geophysics.”° The charge co the panel was to review the available evidence on UFOs and to consider the possible dangers‘of the phenomena to US narional securicy. The panel met from 14 to 17 January 1953. Ic reviewed Airc Force daca on UFO case histories and, after spend- ing 12 hours studying che phenomena, declared chat reasonable explanations could be suggested for most, if not all, sightings. For exam- ple, after reviewing motion-picture film caken of a UFO sighting near Tremoncon, Utah, on 2 July 1952 and one near Great Falls, Montana, on 15 Auguse 1950, the panel con- cluded thac the images on the Tremonton film were caused by sun- light reflecting off seagulls and that the images at Great Falls were sun- light reflecting off the surface of cwo Airc Force interceptors. >! The panel concluded unanimously that chere was no evidence of a direct threac co national security in the UFO sightings. Nor could the panel find any evidence chat the objects sighted might be excracercestrials. Ic did find that continued emphasis on UFO reporting might threacen “the orderly functioning” of che goveramenc by clogging the channels of communica- tion wich irrelevant reports and by inducing “hysterical mass behavior” harmful co constituted authoricy. The panel also worried that pocential enemies contemplating an attack on the United Staces might exploic the 72 UFO phenomena and use them to dis- rupt US air defenses. ?? To meet these problems, the panel rec- ommended thac the National Securicy Council debunk UFO reports and insticute a policy of public education to reassure the public of the lack of evidence behind UFOs. It suggested using the mass media, advertising, business clubs, schools, and even the Disney corporation to get che message across. Reporting ac the height of McCarthyism, the panel also recom- mended that such privace UFO groups as the Civilian Flying Saucer Investigators in Los Angeles and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organiza- tion in Wisconsin be monitored for subversive activities. * The Robertson panel’s conclusions were strikingly similar to chose of the earlier Air Force project reports on SIGN and GRUDGE and to those of the CLA’s own OSI Seudy Group. All investigative groups found that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national security and no evidence of visics by excracerrestrials. Following the Robertson panel find- ings, the Agency abandoned efforts co draft an NSCID on UFOs.* The Sci- entific Advisory Panel on UFOs (the Robertson panel) submicted its report to the IAC, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and che Chairman of che National Security Resources Board. CIA officials said no further consideration of the sub- ject appeared warranted, although they continued co monitor sightings in the incerest of national security. Philip Scrong and Fred Durance from OSI also briefed the Office of Nacional Estimates on the findings.» CIA officials wanted knowledge of any Agency interest in the subject of flying saucers carefully restricted, not- ing noc only chat the Robertson panel report was classified but also chac any mention of CIA sponsorship of the panel was forbidden. This acticude would later cause the Agency major problems relating to its credibility. The 1950s: Fading CIA Interest in UFOs After the report of the Robercson panel, Agency officials put the entire issue of UFOs on the back burner. In May 1953, Chadwell transferred chief responsibilicy for keeping abreast of UFOs to OSI’s Physics and Electronic Division, while the Applied Science Division continued co provide any nec- essary support? Todos M. Odarenko, chief of the Physics and Electronics Division, did not want to cake on the problem, contending chat ic would require too much of his divigion’s ana- lytic and clerical time. Given the findings of the Robertson panel, he proposed to consider che project “inac- tive” and to devote only one analyst part-time and a file clerk to maintain a reference file of the activities of the Air Force and other agencies on UFOs. Neither the Navy nor the Army showed much interest in UFOs, according to Odarenko.** A nonbeliever in UFOs, Odarenko soughe to have his division relieved of the responsibility for monitoring UFO reports. In 1955, for example, he rec- ommended that the entire project be terminated because no new informa- tion concerning UFOs had surfaced. Besides, he argued, his division wa¥ fac- ing a serious budgec reduction and could not spare che resources.?? Chad- well and other Agency officials, however, continued to worry about UFOs. Of special concern were over- seas reports of UFO sightings and
C00242525 claims chac German engineers held by - the Soviers were developing a “flying saucer” as a furure weapon of war.“? To most US political and military leaders, the Soviec Union by the mid- 1950s had become a dangerous oppo- nent. Soviec progress in nuclear weapons and guided missiles was par- ticularly alarming. In the summer of 1949, che USSR had deronated an acomic bomb. In August 1953, only nine months after the Uniced States tested a hydrogen bomb, the Soviets detonated one. In the spring of 1953, a cop secret RAND Corpora- tion study also pointed ouc the vulnerabilicy of SAC bases to a sur- prise acrack by Soviet long-range bombers. Concern over the dangec of a Soviet attack on the United States continued to grow, and UFO sightings added co the uneasiness of US policymakers. Mounting reports of UFOs over east- ern Europe and Afghanistan also prompted concern that the Soviets were making rapid progress in chis area. CIA officials knew that che British and Canadians were already experimenting wich “flying saucers.” Projece ¥ was a Canadian-British-US developmental operation ro produce a nonconvencional flying-saucer-cype aircraft, and Agency officials feared the Soviers were cesting similar devices. “! Adding to the concern was a flying saucer sighting by US Senacor Richard Russell and his party while traveling on a train in the USSR in October 1955. After excensive inter- views of Russell and his group, however, CIA officials concluded thac Russell's sighting did nor sup- port the theory thac the Soviets had developed saucerlike or unconven- tional aircraft. Herbert Scoville, Jr., 66 BLUE BOOK investigators were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights. 99 the Assistant Director of OSI, wrote thac che objects observed probably were normal jet aircraft in a steep climb. ? Wilton E. Lexow, head of che CIA's Applied Sciences Division, was also skeptical. He questioned why the Soviets were continuing co develop conventional-type aircraft if they had a “flying saucer.”® Scoville asked Lexow to assume responsibility for fully assessing che capabilities and limicacions of nonconventional air- craft and to maintain the OSI cencral file on the subject of UFOs. CIA’s U-2 and OXCART as UFOs In November 1954, CLA had entered into the world of high technology with its U-2 overhead reconnaissance project. Working with Lockheed’s Advanced Development facility in Burbank, California, known as the Skunk Works, and Kelly Johnson, an eminent aeronautical engineer, the Agency by August 1955 was testing a high-alticude experimental aircraft— the U-2. Ic could fly ac 60,000 feec; in che mid-1950s, most commercial airliners flew beeween 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet. Consequently, once the U-2 scarted test flights, com- mercial pilots and air traffic controllers began reporting a large increase in UFO sightings.“ (U) The early U-2s were silver (they were later painted black) and reflected che rays from the sun, especially ac sua- UFOs rise and sunset. They often appeared as fiery objects to observers below. Airc Force BLUE BOOK investiga- tors aware of the secret U-2 flights tried to explain away such sightings by linking chem co natural phenom- ena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions. By checking wich the Agency’s U-2 Project Staff in Washington, BLUE BOOK inves- tigators were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights. They were careful, however, not co reveal the true cause of the sighting co the public. According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U- 2 project and che OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s chrough che 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely che U-2) over the Uniced States.* This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive stace- ments to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraor- dinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later con- spiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The per- cencage of what che Air Force considered unexplained UFO sight- ings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956.“ Ac the same time, pressure was build- ing for the release of the Robertson panel report on UFOs. In 1956, Edward Ruppele, former head of the Air Force BLUE BOOK project, publicly revealed the existence of the panel. A best-selling book by UFOI- ogist Donald Keyhoe, a retired Marine Corps major, advocated release of all governmenc informa- tion relating to UFOs. Civilian UFO groups such as the National 73
C00242525
UFOs'
Investigations Committee on Aerial
Phenomena (NICAP) and che Aerial
Phenomena Research Organization
{(APRO) immediately pushed for
release of the Robertson panel
report.” Under pressure, the Air
Force approached CIA for permission
to declassify and release the report.
Despite such pressure, Philip Scrong,
Depury Assistant Director of OSI,
refused to declassify the report and
declined to disclose CLA sponsorship
of the panel. As an alternative, the
Agency prepared a sanitized version of
the report which deleted any reference
to CIA and avoided mention of any
psychological warfare potential in che
UFO controversy.
The demands, however, for more gov-
ernment information about UFOs did
not ler up. On 8 March 1958, Key-
hoe, in an interview with Mike
Wallace of CBS, claimed deep CIA
involvemenc with UFOs and Agency
sponsorship of the Robertson panel.
This prompted a series of letters to
the Agency from Keyhoe and Dr.
Leon Davidson, a chemical engineer
and UFOlogist. They demanded the
release of the full Robertson panel
report and confirmation of CLA
involvement in the UFO issue.
Davidson had convinced himself chac
the Agency, not the Air Force, carried
most of the responsibility for UFO
analysis and chac “che activities of che
US Government are responsible for
the flying saucer sightings of che lasc
decade.” Indeed, because of the
undisclosed U-2 and OXCART
flights, Davidson was closer to the
truch than he suspected. Ci, neverthe-
less held firm co its policy of not
revealing its role in UFO investiga-
tions and refused co declassify che full
Robertson panel report.‘
In a meeting with Air Force representa-
tives to discuss how to handle fucure
74
inquires such as Keyhoe's and David-
son's, Agency officials confirmed their
opposition to che declassification of
the full report and worried thac Key-
hoe had the ear of former DCI VAdm.
Roscoe Hillenkoetter, who served on
the board of governors of NICAP.
They debated whether to have CLA
General Counsel Lawrence R. Hous-
ton show Hillenkoetter the report as a
possible way to defuse the situation.
CIA officer Frank Chapin also hinted
that Davidson might have ulterior
motives, “some of them perhaps not
in the best interest of this country,”
and suggested bringing in the FBI to
investigate.” Although the record is
unclear whether the FBI ever insti-
tuted an investigation of Davidson or
Keyhoe, or whether Houston ever saw
Hillenkoetter about che Robertson
report, Hillenkoerter did resign from
the NICAP in 1962.5!
The Agency was also involved wich
Davidson and Keyhoe in two rather
famous UFO cases in the 1950s,
which helped contribute to a growing
sense of public distruse of CLA wich
regard to UFOs. One focused on
what was reported to have been a tape
recording of a radio signal from a fly-
ing saucer; the other on reported
photographs of a flying saucer. The -
“radio code” incident began inno-
cently enough in 1955, when two
elderly sisters in Chicago, Mildred
and Marie Maier, reporced in the Jour-
nal of Space Flight their experiences
with UFOs, including the recording
of a radio program in which an uni-
dentified code was reportedly heard.
The sisters taped the program and
other ham radio operators also
claimed to have heard che “space mes-
sage.” OSI became interested and
asked the Scientific Concace Branch
to obtain a copy of the recording. *
Field officers from the Contact Divi-
sion (CD), one of whom was Dewelt
Walker, made contact wich che Maier
sisters, who were “thrilled chac che
government was interested,” and sec
up a cime to meet with chem.* In try-
ing to secure the tape recording, the
Agency officers reported that they had
stumbled upon a scene from Arsenic
and Old Lace. “The only ching lack-
ing was the elderberry wine,” Walker
cabled Headquarters. After reviewing
the sisters’ scrapbook of clippings
from their days on the stage, the offic-
ers secured a copy of the recording. #
OSI analyzed che tape and found it
was nothing more than Morse code
from a US radio station.
The matter rested there until
UFOlogist Leon Davidson talked
with the Maier sisters in 1957. The
sisters remembered they had talked
wich a Mr. Walker who said he was
from the US Airc Force. Davidson
then wrote to a Mr. Walker, believing
him co be a US Air Force Intelligence
Officer from Wright-Patterson, to ask
if the tape had been analyzed ac
ATIC. Dewele Walker replied to
Davidson that the tape had been for-
warded to proper authorities for
evaluation, and no information was
available concerning the results. Noc
satisfted, and suspecting chac Walker
was really a CIA officer, Davidson
next wrote DCI Allen Dulles demand-
ing to learn what the coded message
revealed and who Mr. Walker was.
The Agency, wanting co keep
Walker's idencity as a CLA employee
secret, replied that another agency of
the government had analyzed the tape
in question and that Davidson would +
be heacing from the Air Force.** On
5 August, the Air Force wrote David-
son saying that Walker “was and is an
Air Force Officer” and chat the tape
“was analyzed by another government
organization.” The Air Force letterC00242525 confirmed that the recording con- tained only identifiable Morse code which came from a known US- licensed radio station.*” Davidson wrote Dulles again. This time he wanted to know the identity of the Morse operator and of the agency that had conducted the analy- sis. CIA and the Air Force were now in a quandary. The Agency had pre- viously denied that it had actually analyzed the tape. The Air Force had also denied analyzing the tapé and claimed chac Walker was an Air Force - officer. CIA officers, under cover, contacted Davidson in Chicago and promised co get the code translation and the identification of che cransmic- cer, if possible. % In another attempt to pacify David- son, a CIA officer, again under cover and wearing his Air Force uniform, contacted Davidson in New York City. The CIA officer explained chac there was no super agency involved and that Air Force policy was not to disclose who was doing what. While seeming to accept this argument, Davidson nevertheless pressed for dis- closure of the recording message and the source. The officer agreed to see what he could do.” After checking with Headquarters, the CIA officer phoned Davidson to report chat a thorough check had been made and, because the signal was of known US origin, che tape and che notes made at the time had been destroyed to conserve file space. Incensed over what he perceived was a runaround, Davidson told the CIA officer thac “he and his agency, whichever it was, were acting like Jimmy Hoffa and che Teamster 66 Agency officials felt the need to keep informed on UFOs if only to alert the DCI to the more sensational UFO reports and flaps. Union in destroying records which might indict chem.” Believing that any more contact with Davidson would only encourage more specula- tion, che Contact Division washed its hands of the issue by reporting to the DCI and to ATIC that it would nor respond to or try co concace Davidson again. Thus, a minor, rather bizarre incident, handled poorly by both CIA and the Air Force, turned into a major flap chat added fuel to the growing mystery surrounding UFOs and CIA’s role in their investigation. Another minor flap a few months later added co the growing questions surrounding the Agency's true role with regard co flying saucers. CLA’s concern over secrecy again made mat- ters worse. In 1958, Major Keyhoe charged thac the Agency was deliber- ately asking eyewitnesses of UFOs noc co make their sightings public. The incident stemmed from a November 1957 request from OSI to the CD to obtain from Ralph C. Mayher, a photographer for KYW- TV in Cleveland, Ohio, certain pho- togeaphs he took in 1952 of an unidentified flying object. Harry Real, a CD officer, contacted May- hee and obtained copies of the photographs for analysis. On 12 December 1957, John Hazen, another CD officer, returned the five photographs of the alleged UFO to Mayher without comment. Mayher asked Hazen for the Agency’s evalua- UFOs tion of the photos, explaining that he was trying to organize a TV program to brief the public on UFOs. He wanted to mention on the show that a US intelligence organization had viewed the photographs and though them of interest. Although he advised Mayher not to take this approach, Hazen stated that Mayher was a US citizen and would have to make his own decision as co what co do.# Keyhoe later contacted Mayher, who told him his story of CIA and the photographs. Keyhoe then asked the Agency co confirm Hazen’s employ- ment in writing, in an effort to expose CIA’s role in UFO investiga- tions. The Agency refused, despite - the fact chac CD field represencatives were normally overt and carried cre- deatials identifying their Agency association. DCI Dulles’s aide, John S. Earman, merely sent Keyhoe £ noncommiccal lecter noting that, because UFOs were of primary con- cern to the Department of the Air Force, che Agency had referred his letter co the Air Force for an appro- priace response. Like che response to Davidson, the Agency reply to Key- hoe only fueled the speculation chat the Agency was deeply involved in UFO sightings. Pressure for release of CIA information on UFOs contin- ued to grow.% Although CIA had a declining inter- est in UFO cases, it continued co monitoc UFO sightings. Agency offi- cials fele che need co keep informed on UFOs if only to alert the DCI to the more sensational UFO reports and flaps. 75
C00242525 UFOs The 1960s: Declining CIA Involve- ment and Mounting Controversy In the early 1960s, Keyhoe, David- son, and other UFOlogists maincained their assault on the Agency for release of UFO informa- tion. Davidson now claimed that CIA “was solely responsible for creac- ing the Flying Saucer furor as a cool for cold war psychological warfare since 1951.” Despice calls for Con- gressional hearings and the release of all materials relating to UFOs, little changed. : In 1964, however, following high- level Whice House discussions on what co do if an alien intelligence was discovered in space and a new out- break of UFO reports and sightings, DCI John McCone asked for an updated CIA evaluation of UFOs. Responding to McCone’s request, OSI asked the CD to obtain various recenc samples and reports of UFO sightings from NICAP. With Key- hoe, one of the founders, no longer active in the organization, CIA offic- ers met with Richard H. Hall, the acting director. Hall gave the officers samples from the NICAP database on the most recenc sightings. After OSI officers had reviewed che material, Donald F. Chamberlain, OSI Assiscant Director, assured McCone that litele had changed since the early 1950s. There was still no evi- dence chat UFOs were a threat co che security of the United States or that they were of “foreign origin.” Cham- berlain told McCone thac OST still monitored UFO reports, including the official Air Force investigation, Projece BLUE BOOK. At the same time that CLA was con- ducting chis latest internal review of UFOs, public pressure forced the Air 76 Force to establish a special ad hoc committee to review BLUE BOOK. Chaired by Dr. Brian O'Brien, a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, the panel included Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer from Cornell University. Ics report offered nothing new. Ic declared chac UFOs did noc threaten the national security and that it could find “no UFO case which represented techno- logical or scientific advances ourside of a terreserial framework.” The com- mittee did recommend thac UFOs be studied incensively, with a leading uni- versity acting as a coordinator for che project, to settle the issue conclusively,” The House Armed Services Commit- tee also held brief hearings on UFOs in 1966 chac produced similar results. Secretary of che Air Force Harold Brown assured the committee chat most sightings were easily explained and chac chere was no evidence thac “strangers from outer space” had been visiting Earth. He told the committee members, however, thar the Air Force would keep an open mind and con- tinue to investigate all UFO reports.”! Following the ceport of its O'Brien Committee, the House hearings on UFOs, and Dr. Robertson’s disclosure on a CBS Reports program thac CIA indeed had been involved in UFO analysis, che Air Force in July 1966 again approached the Agency for declassificacion of the entire Robert- son panel report of 1953 and the full Durant report on the Robertson panel deliberations and findings. The Agency again refused to budge. Karl H. Weber, Deputy Director of OSI, wrote the Air Force chac “We are most anxious that further publicity noc be given to the information that che panel was sponsored by the CIA.” Weber noted chat there was already a sanitized version available to the public.72 Weber's response was rather shortsighted and ill considered. Ic only drew more attention to the 13- year-old Robertson panel report and CIA's role in the investigation of UFOs. The science editor of The Sat- urday Review drew nationwide attention to the CIA's cole in investi- gating UFOs when he published an article criticizing the “sanitized ver- sion” of the 1953 Robertson panel report and called for release of the entire document.”? Unknown to CIA officials, Dr. James E. McDonald, a noted atmospheric physicist from the University of Ari- zona, had already seen the Durant ceport on the Robertson panel pro- ceedings at Wright-Pacterson on 6 June 1966. When McDonald returned to Wrighe-Patterson on 30 June to copy the report, however, che Aic Force refused to lec him see it again, stating chat ic was a GIA classi- fied document. Emerging as a UFO authority, McDonald publicly claimed chac the CIA was behind the Air Force secrecy policies and coverup. He demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and the Duranc repore.”4 Bowing to public pressure and che rec- ommendation of ics own O’Brien Committee, the Air Force announced in Augusc 1966 chac it was seeking a contract with a leading university to undertake a program of intensive investigations of UFO sightings. The new program was designed to blunt continuing charges char che US Gov- ernment had concealed what ic knew about UFOs. On 7 October, the Uni- versity of Colorado accepted a $325,000 contract wich the Air Force for an 18-month study of flying sau- cers. Dr. Edward U. Condon, a physicist ac Colorado and a former
C00242525 UFOs 66 Additional sightings in the early 1970s also fueled p ; beliefs that the CLA was Director of the National Bureau of - : * in UFO investigations is warranted Standards, agreed to head the pro- somehow involved in a vast by data of the past two decades.” Ic gram. Pronouncing himself an conspiracy. concluded its review by declaring, “agnostic” on the subject of UFOs, Condon observed that he had an open mind on the question and thought that possible excraterritorial origins were “improbable but not impossible.””* Brig. Gen. Edward Giller, USAF, and Dr. Thomas 99 ment not available elsewhere that CIA had used in its analysis of some UFO photography furnished by Ratchford. “On the basis of present knowledge, the least likely explanation of UFOs is the hypothesis of exteacerrestrial visitations by intelligent beings.” Following the recommendations of the Condon Committee and the National Academy of Sciences, the Racchford from the Air Force hi : Secretary of the Air Force, Robert C. Research and Development Office one *S coramumsse were Seamans, Jr., announced on 17 December 1969 the termination of became the Air Force coordinators for the project. In February 1967, Giller contacted Arthur C, Lundahl, Director of CIA's National Photographic Inter- pretation Center (NPIC), and proposed an informal liaison through which NPIC could provide the Con- don Committee with technical advice and services in examining pho- tographs of alleged UFOs. Lundahl and DDI R. Jack Smith approved the arrangement as a way of “preserv- ing a window” on the new effort. They wanted che CIA and NPIC to maintain a low profile, however, and to take no part in writing any conclu- sions for the committee. No work done for che committee by NPIC was to be formally acknowledged. ”° Racchford next requested that Con- don and his committee be allowed to visit NPIC ca discuss che technical aspects of the problem and to view the special equipment NPIC had for photoanalysis. On 20 February 1967, Condon and four members of his committee visited NPIC. Lundahl emphasized to the group that any NPIC work co assise che committee muse not be identified as CLA work. Moreover, work performed by NPIC would be sericely of a technical nacure. After receiving these guide- lines, the group heard a series of briefings on the services and equip- Condon and the same group mec again in May 1967 ac NPIC to hear an analysis of UFO photographs taken at Zanesville, Ohio. The analy- sis debunked that sighting. The committee was again impressed with the technical work performed, and Condon remarked that for the first time a scientific analysis of a UFO would stand up to investigation. “* The group also discussed the com- mittee’s plans co call on US citizens for additional photographs and to issue guidelines for taking useful UFO photographs. In addition, CLA officials agreed thac the Condon Committee could release the full Durant report with only minor deletions. In Apcil 1969, Condon and his com- mittee released their report on UFOs. The report concluded that licele, if anything, had come from the study of UFOs in the pase 21 years and thac further extensive study of UFO sightings was unwarranted. I[t also recommended chat the Air Force special unit, Projece BLUE BOOK, ° be discontinued. It did noc mention CIA participation in che Condon committee's investigation.” A spe- cial panel established by the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the Condon report and concurred with its conclusion chac “no high priority BLUE BOOK.” The 1970s and 1980s: The UFO Issue Refuses To Die The Condon report did noc satisfy many UFOlogists, who considered ic a coverup for CIA activities in UFO research. Additional sightings in the early 1970s fueled beliefs thac che CIA was somehow involved in a vast conspiracy. On 7 June 1975, Will- iam Spaulding, head of a small UFO group, Ground Saucer Watch (GSW), wrote to CIA requesting a copy of the Robertson panel report and all records relating co UFOs.” Spaulding was convinced chac the Agency was withholding major files on UFOs. Agency officials provided Spaulding wich a copy of the Robert- son panel report and of che Durant report. &2 . On 14 July 1975, Spaulding again wrote the Agency questioning the authenticity of the ceports he had received and alleging a CIA coverup of its UFO activities. Gene Wilson, CIA’s Information and Privacy Coordinator, replied in an attempt to satisfy Spaulding, “Ac no time prior to the formation of che Robert- son Panel and subsequent to the issuance of the panel’s report has CIA engaged in che study of the UFO phe- 7
C00242525 UFOs nomena.” The Robertson panel ~ report, according to Wilson, was “che summation of Agency interest and involvement in UFOs.” Wilson also inferred thac there were no additional documents in CIA’s possession thac celated co UFOs. Wilson was ill informed.® In September 1977, Spaulding and GSW, unconvinced by Wilson's response, filed a Freedom of Informa- tion Act (FOIA) lawsuit against che Agency that specifically requested all UFO documents in CIA's possession. Deluged by similar FOIA requests for Agency information on UFOs, CIA officials agreed, after much legal maneuvering, to conduct a “reason- able search” of CIA files for UFO materials.“ Despice an Agency-wide unsympathetic atticude coward the suit, Agency officials, led by Launie Ziebell from the Office of General Counsel, conducted a thorough search for records pertaining co UFOs. Persistent, demanding, and even threatening at times, Ziebell and his group scoured the Agency. They even turned up an old UFO file under a secretary's desk. The search finally produced 355 documents total- ing approximately 900 pages. On 14 December 1978, the Agency released all bue 57 documents of about 100 pages co GSW. Ic withheld these 57 documents on national security grounds and to protect sources and methods.* Although the released documents pro- duced no smoking gun and revealed only a low-level Agency interest in the UFO phenomena after the Robertson panel repore of 1953, the press treated the release in a sensational mannet. The New York Times, for example, claimed that the declassified docu- ments confirmed intensive 78 government concern over UFOs and that che Agency was secretly involved in the surveillance of UFOs. GSW then sued for the release of the with- held documents, claiming that the Agency was still holding out key information.® Ic was much like the John F. Kennedy assassination issue. No matter how much material the Agency released and no macter how dull and prosaic the information, peo- ple continued to believe in a Agency coverup and conspiracy. DCI Stansfield Turner was so upset when he read The New York Times article chat he asked his senior offic- ers, “Are we in UFOs?” After reviewing the records, Don Wortman, Deputy Director for Administration, reported co Turner thac there was “no organized Agency effort to do research in connection wich UFO phenomena nor has there been an organized effort to collect intelligence on UFOs since the 1950s.” Woreman assured Turner that the Agency records held only “sporadic instances of correspondence dealing with the subject,” including various kinds of reports of UFO sight- ings. There was no Agency program to collect actively information on UFOs, and the material released to GSW had few deletions. Thus assured, Turner had the General . Counsel press for a summary judg- ment against che new lawsuit by GSW. In May 1980, the courts dis- missed the lawsuit, finding chac the Agency had conducted a thorough and adequate search in good faich.®” During the late 1970s and 1980s, the Agency continued its low-key interest in UFOs and UFO sightings. While most scientists now dismissed flying saucers reports as a quaine parc of the 1950s and 1960s, some in the Agency and in che Intelligence Com- munity shifted their interest to studying parapsychology and psychic phenomena associated with UFO sightings. CIA officials also looked ac the UFO problem to determine what UFO sightings might tell chem abou Soviet progress in rockets and missiles and reviewed its counterincel- ligence aspects. Agency analysts from the Life Science Division of OSI and OSWR officially devoted a small amount of their time to issues relac- ing to UFOs. These included councerintelligence concerns that the Soviets and the KGB were using US citizens and UFO groups to obrain information on sensitive US weapons development programs (such as the Stealch aircraft), the vulnerability of the US air-defense necwork to pene- tration by foreign missiles mimicking UFOs, and evidence of Soviet - advanced technology associated wich UFO sightings. CIA also maintained Intelligence Community coordination with other agencies regarding their work in para- psychology, psychic phenomena, and “remote viewing” experiments. In general, che Agency took a conserva- tive scientific view of these unconventional scientific issues. There was no formal or official UFO project within the Agency in the 1980s, and Agency officials purposely kepe files on UFOs to a minimum to avoid creating records chat might mis- lead the public if released.” The 1980s also produced renewed charges that the Agency was still wich- holding documents relating to the _ 1947 Roswell incident, in which a flying saucer supposedly crashed in New Mexico, and the surfacing of doc- uments which purportedly revealed the existence of a top secret US research and development intelligence
C00242525 operation responsible only to the President on UFOs in the late 1940s and early 1950s. UFOlogists had long argued thar, following a flying saucer crash in New Mexico in 1947, the government not only recovered debris from the crashed saucer but also four or five alien bodies. Accord- ing to some UFOlogists, the government clamped tight secucity around the project and has refused to divulge its investigation results and research ever since.?' In September 1994, the US Air Force releaseda new report on the Roswell incident that concluded thac the debris found in New Mexico in 1947 probably came from a once top secret balloon - operation, Project MOGUL, designed co monitor che atmosphere for evidence of Soviet nuclear cests.72 Circa 1984, a series of documents surfaced which some UFOlogists said proved thac President Truman cre- ated a top secret committee in 1947, Majestic-12, to secure the recovery of UFO wreckage from Roswell and any other UFO crash sight for scien- tific study and to examine any alien bodies recovered from such sites. Most if noc all of these documents have proved co be fabrications. Yet the controversy persists.”3 Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, che UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter whac the Agency does or says. The belief chat we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the diserust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue ame- nable to tradicional scientific scudies of rational explanation and evidence. 66 Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the Agency does or says. —— 99 NOTES 1. See che 1973 Gallup Poll resules printed in The New York Times, 29 November 1973, p. 45 and Philip J. Klass, UFOs: The Public Decetved (New York: Prometheus Books, 1983), p. 3. 2. See Klass, UFOs, p. 3; James S. Gor- don, “The UFO Experience,” Atlantic Monthly (Augusc 1991), pp. 82-92; David Michael Jacobs, The UFO Con- traversy in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975); Howard Blum, Oue There: The Gov- ernment’s Secret Quest for Exerarerrestrials (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990); Timochy Good, Above Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-Up (New York: William Morrow, 1987); and Whidey Strieber, Communion: The True Story (New York: Morrow, 1987). 3. In Sepcember 1993 John Peterson, an acquaintance of Woolsey’s, first approached che DCI with a package of heavily sanitized CLA material on UFOs released co UFOlogist Scanton. T. Friedman. Peterson and Friedman wanted to know the reasons for the tedactions. Woolsey agreed to look into the matter. See Richard J. War- shaw, Executive Assiscane, note co author, | November 1994; Warshaw, note to John H. Wright, [Informacion and Privacy Coordinator, 31 January 1994; and Wright, memorandum to Executive Secretariat, 2 March 1994. (Excepe where noted, all citations to CIA records in chis article are to the records collected for che 1994 Agency- wide search that are held by the Execu- tive Assistance to the DCI). UFOs . See Hector Quintanilla, Jc., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Vol. 10, No. 4, Studies in Intelligence (fall 1966): pp.95-110 and CIA, unsigned memo- randum, “Flying Saucers,” 14 August 1952. See also Good, Above Top Secret, p. 253. During World War II, US pilots reported “foo fighters” (bright lights trailing US aircraft). Fearing they might be Japanese or German secret weapons, OSS investi- gated but could find no concrete evidence of enemy weapons and often filed such reports in the “crackpoc” category. The OSS also investigated possible sightings of German V-} and V-2 rockets before their operational use during the war. See Jacobs, UFO Controversy, p. 33. The Central Intel- ligence Group, the predecessor of the CIA, also monitored reports of “ghost rockets” in Sweden in 1946. See CIG, Intelligence Report, 9 April 1947, . Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 156 and Quincanilla, “The Investigation of UFOs,” p. 97. . See US Air Force, Air Material Com- mand, “Unidentified Aerial Objects: Project SIGN, no. F-TR 2274, LA, February 1949, Records of che US Air Force Commands, Activities and Organizations, Record Group 341, National Archives, Washington, DC. . See US Air Force, Projects GRUDGE and BLUEBOOK Reports I- 12 (Wash- ington, DC; National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, 1968) and Jacobs, The UFO Contro- versy, pp. 50-54. . see Cabell, memorandum to Com- manding Generals Major Air Commands, “Reporting of Informa- tian on Unconventional Aircraft,” 8 September 1950 and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 65. . See Air Force, Projects GRUDGE and BLUE BOOK and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 67.
C00242525 12, 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 80 10. li. UFOs (S) See Edwaed Tauss, memorandum for Depury Assiscanc Director, SI, “Flying Saucers,” 1 August 1952. See also United Kingdom, Report by the “Flying Saucer” Working Party, “Uni- dencified Flying Objects,” no date (approximately 1950). See Dr. Scone, OSI, memorandum co Dr. Willard Machle, OSI, 15 March 1949 and Ralph L. Clark, Acting Assistance Director, OSI, memoran- dum for DDI, “Recenc Sightings of Unexplained Objects,” 29 July 1952. Scone, memorandum co Machie. See also Clark, memorandum for DDI, 29 July 1952. See Klass, UFOs, p. 15. For a brief review of che Washington sightings see Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 269-271. See Ralph L. Clark, Acting Assistant Director, OSI, memorandum cto DDI Roberc Amory, Jr., 29 July 1952. OSL and OCI were in che Dicectorace of Intelligence. Established in 1948, OSI served as the CIA’s focal poinc for the analysis of foreign scientific and technological developmenes. In 1980, OSI was merged into the Office of Science and Weapons Reseacch. The Office of Currenc Intelligence (OCI), eseablished on 15 January 1951 was co provide all-source current intelligence to the President and che National Security Council. Tauss, memorandum for Deputy Assiscane Director, SI (Philip Scrong), L Augusc 1952. On 2 January 1952, DCI Walcer Bedell Smith created a Deputy Direc- torate for [ncelligence (DDI) composed of six overt CLA organizations—OSI, OCI, Office of Collection and Dissemi- nation, Office National Estimates, Office of Research and Reports, and the Office of Incelligence Coordina- tion—to produce intelligence analysis for US policymakers. See Minutes of Branch Chief's Meer- ing, 11 Auguse 1952. 18. 19, 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Smith expressed his opinions aca meeting in che DCI Conference Room attended by his top officers. See Deputy Chief Requirements Seaff, FI, memorandum for Deputy Director, Plans, “Flying Saucers,” 20 Augusc 1952, Directorace of Opera- tions Records, Information Managemene Saaff, Job 86-00538R, Box 1. (S) See CIA memorandum, unsigned, “Flying Saucers,” 11 August 1952. See CIA, memorandum, unsigned, “Flying Saucers,” 14 August 1952. See CIA, memorandum, unsigned, “Flying Saucers,” 19 Augusr 1952. See Chadwell, memorandum for Smith, 17 Sepcember 1952 and 24 September 1952, “Flying Saucers.” See also Chadwell, memorandum for - DCI Smith, 2 October 1952 and Klass, UFOs, pp. 23-26. Chadwell, memorandum for DCI with aceachmencs, 2 December 1952. See also Klass, UFOs, pp. 26-27 and Chadwell, memorandum, 25 Novem- ber 1952. See Chadwell, memorandum, 25 November 1952 and Chadwell, mem- orandum, “Approval in Principle - External Research Project Concerned with Unidentified Flying Objects,” no dace. See also Philip G. Serong, OSI, memorandum for the record, “Meet- ing wich Dr. Julius A. Seraccon, Executive Vice President and Provosr, MIT and Dr. Max Millikan, Director of CENIS.” Strong believed chat in order to undertake such a review they would need the full backing and sup- port of DCI Smith. See Chadwell, memorandum for DCI, “ Unidentified Flying Objects.” 2 December 1952. See also Chad- well, memorandum for Amory, DDI, “Approval in Principle - External Research Project Concerned wich Uni- dencified Flying Objects,” no date. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. The IAC was created in 1947 to serve as a coordinating body in establishing intelligence requirements. Chaired by the DCI, the LAC included represenca- tives from the Department of State, the Army, the Air Force, the Joinc Chiefs of Staff, che FBI, and the AEC. See Klass, UFOs, p. 27. See Richard D. Drain, Acting Secre- tary, LAC, “Minutes of Meeting held in Director's Conference Room, Administration Building, CIA,” 4 December 1952. (S) See Chadwell, memorandum for the record, “Bricish Activity in the Field of UFOs,” 18 December 1952. See Chadwell, memorandum for DCI, “Consultants for Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects,” 9 January 1953; Curtis Peebles, Wasch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Sau- cer Myth (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994). pp. 73-90; and Jacobs, Tae UFO Can- troversy, pp. 91-92. See Fred C. Durant IIL, Report on the Robertson Panel Meeting, January 1953. Durance, on concract with OSI and a past presidenc of the American Rocket Society, attended the Robert- son panel meetings and wrote a summiacy of the proceedings. See Report of che Scientific Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects (che Rab- ertson Report), 17 January 1953 and the Durance ceport on the panel discussions. See Robertson Report and Duranc Report. See also Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 337-38, Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 95, and Klass, UFO’, pp. 28-29. . . See Reber, memorandum co LAC, 18 February 1953. See Chadwell, memorandum for DDI, “Unidentified Flying Objects,” te tte.
C00242525 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 10 February 1953; Chadwell, leccer co Robertson, 28 January 1953; and Reber, memorandum for LAC, “Uni- dentified Flying Objects,” 18 February 1953. On briefing the ONE, see Durant, memorandum for the record, “Briefing of ONE Board on Unidentified Flying Objects,” 30 January 1953 and CIA Summary dis- seminated co che field, “Unidentified Flying Objects,” 6 February 1953. See Chadwell, leteer co Julius A. Serac- ton, Provost MIT, 27 January 1953. See Chadwell, memorandum for Chief, Physics and Electronics Divi- . sion/OSI (Todos M. Odarenko), “Unidentified Flying Objects,” 27 May 1953. See Odarenko, memorandum co Chadwell, “Unidentified Flying Objects,” 3 July 1953. See also Odarenko, memorandum co Chad- well, “Cucrene Scacus of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) Projece,” 17 December 1953. See Odarenko, memorandum, “Uni- dentified Flying Objects,” 8 August 1955. See FBIS, report, “Military Unconven- tional Aircraft,” 18 Auguse 1953 and various reports, “Milicary-Air, Uncon- ventional Aircraft,” 1953, 1954, 1955. Developed by the Canadian affiliate of Britain's A. V. Roe, Led., Projece ¥ did produce a small-scale model chac hovered a few feet off che ground. See Odarenko, memorandum co Chad- well, “Flying Saucer Type of Planes” 25 May 1954; Frederic C. E. Oder, memorandum to Odarenko, “USAF Projecc Y,” 21 May 1954; and Odarenko, T. M. Nordbeck, Ops/SI, and Sidney Graybeal, ASD/SI, memo- randum for che record, “Intelligence Responsibilities for Non-Conven- tional Types of Air Vehicles,” 14 June 1954, See Reuben Efron, memorandum, “Observation of Flying Object Near 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Baku,” 13 October 1955; Scoville, memorandum for the record, “Inter- view with Senacor Richard B. Russell,” 27 October 1955; and Wilton E. Lexow, memorandum for informacion, “Reported Sighting of Unconventional Aiccraft,” 19 October 1955. See Lexow, memorandum for informa- tion, “Reported Sighting of Unconventional Aircraft,” 19 October 1955. See also Frank C. Bolser, mem- orandum for George C. Miller, Deputy Chief, SAD/SI, “Possible Soviec Flying Saucers, Check On;” Lexow, memorandum, “Possible Sovier Flying Saucers, Follow Up On,” 17 December 1954; Lexow, memorandum, “Possible Sovier Flying Saucers,” 1 December 1954; and A. H. Sullivan, Jr., memorandum, “Possi- ble Sovier Flying Saucers,” 24 November 1954. See Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, The Central Intelli- gence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974 (Washington, DC: CIA History Staff, 1992), pp. 72-73. See Pedlow and Welzenbach, Over- head Reconnaissance, pp. 72-73. This also was confirmed in a telephone interview beeween the author and John Parongosky, 26 July 1994. Parongosky oversaw che day-to-day affairs of che OXCART program. See Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p- 135. See Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 128- 146; Ruppele, The Report on Unidenti- fred Flying Objects (New York: Doubleday, 1956); Keyhoe, The Fly- ing Saucer Conspiracy (New York: Hole, 1955); and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, pp. 347-49. See Strong, letter co Lloyd W. Berkner; Strong, letcer co Thorton Page; Scrong, lecter co Robertson; Scrong, letter co Samuel Goudsmic; Strong, letter co Luis Alvarez, 20 December 1957; and 49. 50. Si. 52. UFOs Strong, memorandum for Major James F, Byrne, Assiscant Chief of Seaff, Incel- ligence Department of the Air Force, “Declassification of the ‘Report of the Sciencific Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects,” 20 December 1957. See also Berkner, lecter to Scrong, 20 November 1957 and Page, letter to Strong, 4 December 1957. The panel members were also reluctant to have their association with the Agency released. See Wilton E. Lexow, memorandum for che record, “Comments on Letters Dealing with Unidentified Flying Objects,” 4 April 1958; J. S. Earman, leccer co Major Lawrence J. Tacker, Office of the Secretary of the Aic Force, Information Service, 4 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Berkner, 8 April 1958; Berkner, letter to David- son, 18 April 1958; Berkner, letter to Strong, 21 April 1958; Davidson, let- ter to Tacker, 27 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Allen Dulles, 27 April 1958; Ruppele, lecter co David- son, 7 May 1958; Strong, letter to Berkner, 8 May 1958; Davidson, lee- cer co Berkner, 8 May 1958; = Davidson, letter co Earman, 16 May 1958; Davidson, lerter to Goudsmit, 18 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Page, 18 May 1958; and Tacker, let- ter to Davidson, 20 May 1958. See Lexow, memorandum for Chapin, 28 July 1958. See Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 346- 47; Lexow, memorandum for the record, “Meeting with che Air Force Personnel Concerning Scientific Advi- sory Panel Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, dated 17 January 1953 (S),” 16 May 1958. See also La Rae L. Teel, Deputy Division Chief, ASD, memorandum for the record, “Meeting wich Mr. Chapin on Reply- ing to Leon Davidson's UFO Lecter and Subsequenc Telephone Conversa- tion with Major Thacker, (sée]" 22 May 1958. See Edwin M. Ashcraft, Chief, Contact Division (Scientific), memo- 81
C00242525 UFOs 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. GL. 62. 63. 82 randum to Chief, Chicago Office, “Radio Code Recording,” 4 March 1955 and Asheraft, memorandum to Chief, Support Branch, OSI, 17 March 1955. The Contact Division was created to collect foreign intelligence informa- tion from sources within the Unired Scaces. See che Direceorate of Intelli- gence Historical Series, The Origin and Development of Contact Division, 11 July 1946-1 July 1965 (Washing- con, DC; CIA Historical Seaff, June 1969). . See George O. Forrese, Chief, Chi- cago Office, memorandum to Chief, Concact Division for Science, [1 March 1955. See Support Division (Connell), mem- orandum co Dewelr E. Walker, 25 April 1957. See J. Arnold Shaw, Assistance to the Director, letter to Davidson, 10 May 1957. See Support (Connell) memorandum to Le. Col. V. Skakich, 27 Auguse 1957 and Lamountain, memorandum to Support (Connell), 20 December 1957. See Lamountain, cable to Support (Connell), 31 July 1958. See Support (Connell) cable to Skak- ich, 3 October 1957 and Skakich, cable to Connell, 9 Occober 1957. See Skakich, cable to Connell, 9 Octo- ber 1957. See R. P. B. Lohmann, memorandum for Chief, Contace Division, DO, 9 January 1958. See Support, cable co Skakich, 20 Feb- ruary 1958 and Connell (Suppore) cable co Lamounrain, 19 December 1957, See Edwin M. Ashcraft, Chief, Con- cace Division, Office of Operations, memorandum for Austin Bricker, Jr., Assistant co the Director, “Inquiry by Major Donald E. Keyhoe on John Hazen’s Association wich the Agency,” 22 January 1959. . See John T. Hazen, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division, 12 Decem- ber 1957. See also Ashcraft, memorandum to Cleveland Residence Agent. “Ralph E. Mayher,” 20 Decem- ber 1957. According to this memorandum, the phorographs were _ viewed ac “a high level and returned 65. 66. 67. 68. to us without comment.” The Air Force held the original negatives. The CIA records were probably destroyed. The issue would resurface in the 1970s wich che GSW FOIA court case. See Robert Amory, Je., DDI, memo- randum for Assistant Director/ Scientilic Intelligence, “Flying Sau- cers,” 26 March 1956. See also Wallace R. Lamphire, Office of che Directar, Planning and Coordination Staff. memorandum for Richard M. Bissell, Jr..-"Unidentified Flying Sau- cers (UFO).” LI June 1957; Philip Scrony, memorandum for the Direc- tor, NPIC, “Reported Photography of Unidentified Flying Objects,” 27 Octaber 1958; Scoville, memorandum to Lawrence Houston, Legislative Counsel, “Reply co Honorable Joseph E. Garth.” (2 July 1961; and Hous- con, leer to Garth, 13 July 1961. See, for example, Davidson, letter co Congressman Joseph Garth, 26 June 1961 and Cart Vinson, Chairman, House Committee on Armed Ser- vices, letter co Rep. Robert A. Everett, 2 Seprember 1964. See Maxwell W. Hunter, scaff mem- ber. Nacional Aeronautics and Space Council. Executive Office of the Presi- dence. memorandum for Robert F. Parkard. Office of International Scien- cific Alfairs, Deparemenc of Scace, “Thoughts on the Space Alien Race Question.” 18 July 1963, File SP 16, Records of the Deparcment of State, Record Group 59, National Archives. 69. 70. 71, 72. 73. 74. See also F. J. Sheridan, Chief, Wash- ington Office, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division, “National Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP),” 25: January 1965. Chamberlain, memorandum for DCI, “Evaluation of UFOs,” 26 January 1965. See Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 199 and US Air Force, Sciennific Advi- sory Board, Ad Hoc Committee (O'Brien Committee) to Review Project BLUE BOOK, Special Report (Washington, DC: 1966). See also The New York Times, 14 August 1966, p. 70. See “Congress Reassured on Space Vis- its,” The New York Times, 6 April 1966. Weber, lecter to Col. Gerald E. Jor- gensen, Chief, Community Relations Division, Office of Information, US Air Force, 15 August 1966. The Durane report was a detailed summary of the Robertson panel proceedings. See John Lear, “The Disputed CLA Document on UFOs,” Saturday Review (September 3, 1966), p. 45. The Lear article was otherwise unsym- pathetic to UFO sightings and the possibilicy chac excraterricorials were involved. The Air Force had been eager to provide Lear wich che full report. See Walter L. Mackey, Execu- tive Officer, memorandum for DCI, “Ait Force Request to Declassify CIA Macerial on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO),” 1 Sepcember 1966. See Klass, UFOs, p. 40, Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 214 and Everec .. Clark, “Physicise Scores “Saucer Sea- tus,” The New York Times, 21 Occober 1966. See also James E. McDonald, “Seacement on Unidenti- fied Flying Objects,” submitted to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 29 July 1968. deme ett ete
C00242525 75. 76. 78. 79. 80. Condon is quoted in Walter Sullivan, “3 Aides Selected in Saucer Inquiry,” The New York Times, 8 October 1966. See also “An Outspoken Scien- tist, Edward Uhler Condon,” The New York Times, 8 October 1966. Condon, an outgoing, gruff scientist, had earlier become embroiled in a con- troversy with the House Unamerican Activicies Committee that claimed Condon was “one of the weakest links in our atomic security.” See also Pee- bles, Wasch the Skies, pp. 169-195. See Lundahl, memorandum for DDI, 7. February 1967. . See memorandum for che record, “Visit of Dr. Condon to NPIC, 20 February 1967,” 23 February 1967. See also che analysis of the phoco- graphs in memorandum for Lundahl, “Phoco Analysis of UFO Photogra- phy,” 17 February 1967. See memorandum for the record, “UFO Briefing for Dr. Edward Con- don, 5 May 1967,” 8 May 1967 and attached “Guidelines co UFO Photog- raphers and UFO Photographic Information Sheet.” See also Condon Committee, Press Release, 1 May 1967 and Klass, UFOs, p. 41. The Zaneville phocographs curned out to be a hoax. See Edward U. Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (New York: Bantam Books, 1969) and Klass, UFOs, p. 41. The report contained the Durant repore with only minor deletions. See Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense, News Release, “Air Force co Terminace Projece BLUEBOOK,” 17 December 1969. The Air Force retired BLUEBOOK cecords to che USAF Archives ac Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. In 1976 che.Air Force curned over all BLUEBOOK Files co che Nacional Archives and Records Administration, which made them available co the public withour major restrictions. Some names have 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. been withheld from the documents. See Klass, UFOs, p. 6. GSW was a small group of UFO buffs based in Phoenix, Arizona, and headed by William H. Spaulding. See Klass, UFOs, p. 8. See Wilson, letter co Spaulding, 26 March 1976 and GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859. GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78- 859, p. 2. Auchor interview wich Launie Ziebell, 23 June 1994 and auchor interview wich OST analyse, 21 July 1994. See also affidavics of George Owens, CLA Information and Privacy Act Coordi- nator; Karl H. Weber, OSI; Sidney D. Scembridge, Office of Security; and Rutledge P. Hazzard, DS&T; GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859 and Sayre Stevens, Deputy Director for National Foreign Assessment, memo- randum for Thomas H. White, Assiscanc for Information, Informa- tion Review Committee, “FOLA Litigation Ground Saucer Watch,” no dare. See “CIA Papers Detail UFO Surveil- lance,” The New York Times, 13 January 1979; Patrick Huyghe, “UFO Files: The Uncold Story,” The New York Times Magazine, 14 October 1979, p. 106; and Jecome Clark, “UFO Update,” UFO Report, August. 1979. Jerome Clark, “Lacese UFO News Briefs From Around the World,” UFO Update, August 1979 and GSW v. CIA Civil Action No. 78-859. See Worcman, memorandum for DCI Turner, “Your Question, ‘Are we in UFOs?’ Annotated to The New York Times News Release Article,” 18 Janu- ary 1979. See GSW v. CIA Civil Action 78- 859. See also Klass, UFOs, pp. 10-12. 90. 91. UFOs (S) See John Brennan, memorandum for Richard Warshaw, Executive Assis- rant, DCI, “Requested Informacion on UFOs,” 30 September 1993; Author interviews with OSWR ana- lyst, 14 June 1994 and OSI analyse, 21 July 1994. This author found almost no documentation on Agency involvement with UFOs in che 1980s. There is a DLA Psychic Center and the NSA studies parapsychology, thac branch of psychology that deals wich the investigation of such psychic phe- nomena as clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, and telepathy. The CLA reportedly is also a member of an Inci- denc Response Team to investigate UFO landings, if one should occur. This team has never met. The lack of solid CLA documentation on Agency UFO-relaced activities in che 1980s leaves the entice issue somewhat murky for this period. Much of che UFO liceracure presencly focuses on concactees and abductees. See John E. Mack, Adduction, Human Encounters with Aliens (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1994) and Howard Blum, Our There (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990). See Charles Berliez and William L. Moore, The Roswell Incident (New York: Berkeley Books, 1988); Moore, “The Roswell Incident: New Evidence in the Search for a Crashed UFO,” (Burbank, California: Fair Witness Project, 1982), Publication Number 1201; and Klass; UFOs, pp. 280-281. In 1994 Congressman Steven H. Schiff (R-NM) called for an official study of che Roswell incident. The GAO is conducting a separate investi- gation of the incident. The CIA is noc involved in che investigation. Sec Klass, UFOs, pp. 279-281; John H. Wrighc, Information and Privacy Coordinator, letter co Derek Skreen, 20 September 1993; and OSWR ana- lyst interview. See also che made-for- TV film, Roswell, which appeared on cable TV on 31 July 1994 and Pee- bles, Watch the Skies, pp. 245-251. 83
C00242525 | i UFOs - 92. See John Diamond, “Air Force Probes 1947 UFO Claim Findings Are Down to Earth,” 9 Sepcember 1994, Associated Press release; William J. Broad, “Wreckage of a ‘Spaceship’: Of This Earth (and U.S.)," The New York Times, 18 September 1994, p. 1; and USAF Col. Richard L. Weaver and Use Le. James McAndrew, The Roswell Report, Fact Versus Fiction in New Mexico Desert (Washington, DC: GPO, 1995). 93. See Good, Above Top Secret, Moore and S. T. Friedman, “Philip Klass and M§J-12: Whar are the Faces,” (Bur- bank California: Fair-Witness Project, 1988), Publicacion Number 1290; Klass, “New Evidence of MJ-12 1. Hoax,” Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 14 4 (Winter 1990); and Moore and Jaime ‘ H. Shandera, The M/-12 Documents: An Analytical Report (Burbank, Cali- ‘ fornia: Fairc-Wicness Project, 1990), Publication Number 1500. Walcer Bedell Smith supposedly replaced For- restal on 1 August 1950 following Focrestal’s death. All members listed were deceased when the MJ-12 “docu- ments” surfaced in 1984. See Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 258-268. Dr. Larry Bland, editor of The George C. Marshall Papers, discovered that one of che so-called Majestic-12 docu- ments was a complete fraud. [t contained the exact same language as a leccer from Marshall co Presidencial candidate Thomas Dewey regarding the “Magic” intercepts in 1944. The dates and names had been altered and “Magic” changed to “Majic.” More- over, ic was a photocopy, noc an original. No original MJ-12 docu- mencs have ever surfaced. Telephone conversation between che auchor and Bland, 29 August 1994. 84